CourtFrame
NCAA BasketballrecapNCAA

Manhattan closes late to top Niagara 76-69, steadies after back-and-forth stretch

Manhattan handled business on the road Friday night, pulling away late to beat Niagara 76-69 in NCAA action. The win snaps the game’s momentum swings and gives Manhattan a needed result as both teams navigate uneven form.

James O'Brien
James O'Brien
2 min read

Key Takeaways

  • 1Manhattan beat Niagara 76–69, a 7-point margin.
  • 2The second quarter decided it: Manhattan won it 35–27, an 8-point swing.
  • 3Manhattan led 35–27 at the break and never gave the lead back.
  • 4The two teams combined for 145 points.
  • 5The CourtFrame model picked Manhattan at 62% confidence — the pick was correct.

Manhattan got the separation it needed late and walked out with a 76-69 win over Niagara on February 13, 2026, adding a road result that mattered for a team sitting at 10-16 and searching for consistency.

Niagara, now 6-18, had its chances to flip the script but couldn’t land the closing sequence it needed. With no overtime and no quarter-by-quarter scoring available, the story reads clean: Manhattan’s offense produced enough clean possessions to reach 76, and Niagara couldn’t match that pace to the finish.

Game flow: Manhattan finds the finishing edge

This game lived in the margins. Manhattan’s ability to get to 76 in regulation proved decisive in a matchup where both teams entered with uneven recent form (Manhattan: WLLWL; Niagara: LWLLL). The Jaspers didn’t need extra time — just a steadier final stretch than Niagara could manage.

Turning point: closing-time execution

The defining swing came in the closing minutes, when Manhattan created just enough scoring distance to turn a competitive night into a seven-point final. In a matchup without detailed split scoring, the takeaway is still sharp: Manhattan executed better when the game tightened, and Niagara didn’t generate the response run required to force a one-possession finish.

What it means going forward

Manhattan

At 10-16, Manhattan’s path forward is about stacking results that reinforce winning habits. A 76-point road performance is a useful marker — not because of volume alone, but because it came in a game that demanded late-game control. If Manhattan can turn this type of finish into a repeatable identity, it changes the texture of close games down the stretch of the season.

Niagara

For Niagara (6-18), the loss continues a difficult stretch, and the margin underscores the challenge: competitive enough to be in range, not sharp enough to close. The Purple Eagles need more from their late-game offense to avoid letting winnable segments slip away — especially in games where the opponent is reachable but not fading.

Final

Manhattan 76, Niagara 69 — venue TBD.

Game Data

Quarter-by-quarter score, Manhattan at Niagara
TeamQ1Q2Q3Q4Final
Manhattan03504176
Niagara02704269
Date
February 13, 2026
Competition
NCAA
Status
Game Finished

CourtFrame model, before tip-off

Picked Manhattan at 62% confidencepick hit

Published before the game and scored against the result afterwards, hit or miss. How the model works

What the pick was built on

  • Manhattan has the better overall record (10-16 vs 6-18)
  • Recent form slightly favors Manhattan (2 wins in last 5 vs 1 for Niagara)
  • No significant injuries reported for either team, reducing uncertainty from absences

Frequently Asked Questions

What was the final score of Manhattan vs Niagara?

Manhattan won 76–69, played on February 13, 2026.

Who won Manhattan vs Niagara?

Manhattan, by 7 points in the NCAA.

Which quarter decided Manhattan vs Niagara?

The second quarter. Manhattan won it 35–27, the largest swing of the game at 8 points.

What does CourtFrame's model predict for Manhattan vs Niagara?

The model favoured Manhattan with 62% confidence, and that pick was correct. Picks are published before tip-off and scored against the result.

Data Official basketball data feed (ref. 485111)

How this was written Drafted by CourtFrame's generative model from the official statistical feed for this game, then published under editorial review. Editorial policy